Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
The Forum - Debate Religion
>
What are we saved from?
This is terrible exclusive exegesis, Lee. Someone of your caliber would be expected to have a much more robust and tenable understanding of the Christian concept of soteriology. You cite verses like fear of death (c.f. Heb 2:15), but gleanings from the entire epistle in context show that the fear of death is equated with the ultimate fear of judgment which follows death (c.f. Heb 9:27, 10:26-27). Are we to assume that there is no life hereafter, and all judgment and wrath is merely the forthcoming war, than the entire New Testament becomes meaningless fodder of ramble."If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God" (Heb 10:26-27).
If Christ's sacrifice as the atonement for our sins (Lev 17:11) was efficacious enough to propitiate (Heb 9:14) the wrath of God against the ungodly (Rom 3:25) once and for all (Heb 10:1-18) serves only inasmuch as the wrath of God upon the ungodly is limited to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., than Christ's sacrifice was a sham (Heb 10:29-31) that did not expiate, atone, or propitiate the sins of anyone notwithstanding the verses in the Bible that are replete to the contrary (c.f. 1 Tim 2:1-15; Rom 6:1-23; 1 Jn 3:5).
The Bible is unequivocal, the wages of sin is death, Christ removed that curse of sin, through the regeneration from above because of the penal atonement by Christ on our behalf. Thereby allowing sinners--who were condemned to hell (c.f. Jn 3:18, 3:36; Matt 25:46, Rom 6:23, Matt 13:50, 2 Thes 1:9, etc.)--to enter back, once again, into God's presence (Rom 5:10, Col 1:20).
Herein lies the problem: Lee denies that there is any conscience afterlife in a postmortem state despite the exegetical evidence to the contrary! Well, Lee, if that be the case--than as far as I'm concerned, the Bible is a big book of rubbish: I'm off to live selfishly, because even if I don't, all man receive the same ending of finality with no logical consequences to their actions here on earth given the absence of a life hereafter.
Hear the words of Nietzsche from The Will to Power:
"The aberration of philosophy is that, instead of seeing in logic and the categories of reason means toward the adjustment of the world for utilitarian ends (basically, toward an expedient falsification), one believed one possessed in them the criterion of truth and reality. The "criterion of truth" was in fact merely the biological utility of such a system of systematic falsification; and since a species of animals knows of nothing more important than its own preservation, one might indeed be permitted to speak here of "truth."
The naivete was to take an anthropocentric idiosyncrasy as the measure of things, as the rule for determining "real" and "unreal": in short, to make absolute something conditioned. And behold, suddenly the world fell apart into a "true" world and an "apparent" world: and precisely the world that man's reason had devised for him to live and settle in was discredited.
Instead of employing the forms as a tool for making the world manageable and calculable, the madness of philosophers divined that in these categories is presented the concept of that world to which the one in which man lives does not correspond--The means were misunderstood as measures of value, even as a condemnation of their real intention--
In short, this whole apologetics discussion board becomes nothing but mumble, and Jesus devolves simply into a mere anthropocentric idiosyncrasy! Hah!
“There cannot be a God because if there were one, I could not believe that I was not He.” Nietzsche
"If God does not exist, then everything is permitted." Fyodor Dostoevsky The Brothers Karamazov
To get us back on topic, discussing salvation and not the existence of God or the probability of an afterlife...The point I am making is that in all instances where salvation is discussed, what we are saved from is this-worldly. "Fear of death" is probably not something we need worry about in any afterlife. If this verse is the only crack you can find in the logic, it seems pretty solid that salvation is this-worldly.
Read Hebrews 9 and 10 again, and you will not see mention of postmortem torment at all. Try not to read into the text something you already believe. You WILL see mentioned a fear of dreadful, fiery means of dying. Shall we agree that the "fear of death" that we are saved from is the fear of dying through God's "fiery indignation?" (Sorry if that sounds an awful lot like 70 AD).
I am not arguing that the Bible never speaks of life after death. It is that afterlife-oriented Christians miss the entire point of being a Christian, and read the afterlife into verses where it is not present.
As for atonement theory and the whole original sin thing, that seems like religion gone wild to me. Sounds like an interesting side discussion, though.
Of course it sounds like religion gone wild to you Lee. It's amazing how you can read the Bible and miss...just about everything. It's mind boggling what does and does not go through your head. (thanks for letting us poke around.)
lol. You realize I think the same of you...so indoctrinated in religion that you can no longer see what the Bible really says.
the wraith to come obviously ain't "This Worldly!" (to some who read the Bible.)Crimes pays very well. Sin pays even better. But eternity will be nasty for those who refuse obedience and God's Love.
Mark 9:42
42 “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea. 43 And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. 45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. 47 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, 48 ‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’ 49 For everyone will be salted with fire.
Personally I have no interest in religion Lee. Just the Bible. Religion is only as useful as Jello to throw against the solid foundation of God's scriptures. :c)
Rod wrote: "the wraith to come obviously ain't "This Worldly!" (to some who read the Bible.)Only to people who avoid studying the alternative, Rod. Example:
And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. –Matthew 3:10-12
What is this unquenchable fire that John speaks of? Readers today, perhaps unaware of the first-century setting in which these words were written, may imagine that “unquenchable fire” is a reference to hell. Not so. John's wording makes it quite clear that he is speaking in the language of Jeremiah, who prophesied the first destruction of Jerusalem six hundred years beforehand. John is saying the very same thing is about to happen again, using language typical of Old Testament prophecies against a nation. Jerusalem is about to be destroyed, says John, with unquenchable fire.
He was right. It happened in 70 AD.
Another example:And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into [Gehenna], into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Jesus has lifted this image directly from the book of Isaiah, chapter 66, verse 24:
And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.
Here we see that Isaiah couldn't possibly have been talking about eternal conscious punishment, the way many imagine hell. It is the carcasses of dead men that are burning and being eaten by worms. So what is Isaiah talking about?
This passage (chapters 60-66 of Isaiah) specifically refers to the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. Exactly what happened again in 70 A.D. Probably Jesus is quoting this verse to emphasize that Jerusalem was about to be destroyed again.
I see we cross-posted, and I annihilated your reference to Gehenna with a bit of analysis. Here's a third example:And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in [Gehenna]. –Matthew 10:28
It sure sounds like Jesus is talking about God's vengeance in the afterlife, doesn't it? “Destroy body and soul?” But again he's probably not. Jesus is again directly quoting Isaiah:
And the light of Israel shall be for a fire, and his Holy One for a flame: and it shall burn and devour his thorns and his briers in one day; and shall consume the glory of his forest, and of his fruitful field, both soul and body ... –Isaiah 10:18
Once again, we discover that Jesus is quoting a verse where Isaiah is talking about God’s judgment on Israel. Isaiah compares God’s judgment to a wildfire burning down people like trees. When Isaiah uses this phrase “body and soul” he is merely employing an idiom meaning “to completely destroy.” Likewise, Jesus was merely highlighting Jerusalem’s horrible future destruction in idiomatic language. Fear God, says Jesus, who is able to bring Jerusalem to complete ruin.
All of these "wrath of God" examples are this-worldly.
God works through progressive revelation. You're applying only one biblical hermeneutic to the passage when it calls for others. Even still, you method makes your humanitarian Jesus a fringe lunatic with no real good moral ethic at all—demonstrably mad! Jesus ministry was in Galilee, Capernum, and other places not in Jerusalem. He further told the disciples to take the gospel to the ends of the world.Really? So the disciples are preaching a message to people in India, Africa, and Europe, about how to avoid a one time Roman destruction on Jerusalem in 70 by cutting of one's hand?
In that case, your Jesus is a madman, someone not worthy of veneration, but someone to be locked up in the stocks.
Awesome Brent. I'm glad you caught all that.
Madman or not (that's your off-the-wall observation), this verse may help you see the historical Jesus and recognize his worthiness:How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. --Acts 10:38
btw Brent, do you not recognize that the Jesus story is about a simple peasant whom God anointed to take His message to the proud city of Jerusalem?
Lee do you realize this message was for the world? Do simple peasants have amazing births? ministries? Deaths? Influence?John 9:35-39
“Do you believe in the Son of Man?” 36 He answered, “And who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?” 37 Jesus said to him, “You have seen him, and sit is he who is speaking to you.” 38 He said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped him. 39 Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.”
Jesus came to judge and to be worshiped. And for a few other wonderful reasons. Jesus also came to take on Satan - is that only a Jerusalem issue as well?
What are we saved from?Ourselves and our own humanistic existence and pursuits. WE are saved from everything Lee cherishes. :D
Of course it was for the world. But it was delivered to Jerusalem. Jesus stood weeping over Jerusalem, knowing its coming demise, before he trekked down the mount of olives to deliver his message.btw I seriously doubt Jesus wanted to be worshiped. When they wanted to make him king, he ran away. When they attributed miracles to him, he deferred to God.
Maybe we are forgetting the message. The Gospel is that the age of God's rule has arrived. The poor can finally rejoice. Jesus called it the Jubilee, when debts were forgiven, land is returned to its original owner, and the proud are frustrated. People thought to be sinners were accepted back into society. The age of God's rule, according to Jesus, was not going to be happy times for the rich and proud.
Lee wrote: "Of course it was for the world. But it was delivered to Jerusalem. Jesus stood weeping over Jerusalem, knowing its coming demise, before he trekked down the mount of olives to deliver his message...."
Ohhhh, Lee, you're excluding serious key passages here. No one is saying Jesus didn't want to ascribe praise to the Father or be set up as an earthly king like the Zealots wanted.
"They bowed down and worshiped Him (Matt 14:33); "[They] came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him" (Matt 28:9); Thomas said to him, ‘My Lord and my God!’" (John 20:28).
For all of the angelic beings who sharply rebuked humans who worshiped them (Acts 10:25-26; Rev 19:9-10, Jesus did nothing of the sort, but forgave sins--something the Jews knew so well that could only be done by "God alone" (Lk 5:21).
Lee, you're humanitarian Jesus, in given your theology, was a loony-wack-job deceiver who died guilty, not innocent, as a blasphemer against Yahweh God, putting himself in the very place of God when he, as a mere human, was not.
This is the person you claim to follow? I can think of two dozen more people more venerable than that Jesus.
Given that it is now Christmas Day, let us be thankful to [Insert ambiguous unknowable Deity that may or may not exist or have any interaction with its human agents] that Jesus came into the world to save us from the Titus' forthcoming army that would raid and sack Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
Amen.
Rod wrote: "What are we saved from?Ourselves and our own humanistic existence and pursuits. WE are saved from everything Lee cherishes. :D"
Amen, Rod. Let the blind lead the blind.
Frustrating to learn that your religious beliefs are not founded in scripture, isn't it, Brent? ;) I'm sorry you find the real Jesus to be a let down.On the matter of whether or not Jesus wanted to be worshiped, I must confess that I do not know for sure. Clearly he was worshiped, as you pointed out, though if he wanted to be, then my respect for him greatly diminishes. I should clarify in this discussion that I am referring to the historical Jesus, not the risen Jesus.
You have never had respect for the real Jesus Lee. WE all know that. :p
That doesn't mean Lee is above hijacking Him to be a figurehead for his secular liberal social engineering.
lol. I've no interest in hijacking your fairy tale, Robert. You may keep your 21st century Jesus. My interest is in digging back to the real Jesus, and his real message, before he was hijacked by religion.
I was rather surprised that anyone didn't understand that Jesus preached against Jerusalem. Why should we imagine that the "wrath to come" refers to the destruction of Jerusalem? Because other scriptures tell us clearly that Jesus warned of the coming destruction of Jerusalem:As the crowds increased, Jesus said, "This is a wicked generation. it asks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.
Do you know what the sign of Jonah is? Most Bible readers are familiar with this scripture, from the gospels of Matthew and Luke. The "sign of Jonah" is that Jonah spent three days and three nights in the belly of the whale ... like Jesus spent three days in the grave, right?
Not according to Luke. Luke explains this saying thusly:
For as Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites, so also will the Son of Man be to this generation.—Luke 11:30.
As Luke explains, Jonah preached repentance to a wicked city. In Nineveh's case, the wicked city repented, and was saved. But in Jerusalem's case, there was no repentance ... and Jerusalem was not saved (a generation later, it was completely leveled by the Romans).
That, of course, is why Jesus wept over Jerusalem; he foresaw its future. Note also this verse in Ezekiel:
"Son of man, set your face toward Jerusalem, preach against the holy places, and prophesy against the land of Israel;"
If Jesus saw himself as the Son of Man, he would have recognized his responsibility to prophesy against Jerusalem. That is, to tell how it would soon be destroyed.
Whether or not God himself condoned or participated in the destruction of Jerusalem is another matter. God said to Jeremiah that it never crossed his mind to cast anyone into the fires of Gehenna.
They have built the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to burn their sons and daughters in the fire—something I did not command, nor did it enter my mind.
(the word Jesus uses for "hell", Gehenna, means the Valley of Hinnom)
Am I going to the Valley of Hinnom Lee? Especially if I disagree with just about everything you say? :DHave you been there lately? Is the fire still going nicely?
Sorry to come into this thread late...I was making merry at Christmas :)I've read the posts on my phone, though forgiveness in advance if what I write now misunderstands anything.
First, some here do a good job of making personal accusations rather then engaging with what Lee has to say. Perhaps it is arrogance, you're so convinced you're right and he is wrong you don't need to bother. But when Lee offers quite a long post in defense of his position (such as post 25) and the response given is a snarky answer (post 26)...I would hope for more by those who call themselves Christians. Especially when apparently disagreeing with you means that Lee apparently does not respect Jesus. So Lee studies the Bible, blogs about it, writes long posts about it and does not respect Jesus. But others who claim to love Jesus can just attack Lee.
Come on. Do Better.
One other thing caught my eye a few days back, way back in post 2 when Brett said,
The Bible is unequivocal, the wages of sin is death, Christ removed that curse of sin, through the regeneration from above because of the penal atonement by Christ on our behalf. Thereby allowing sinners--who were condemned to hell (c.f. Jn 3:18, 3:36; Matt 25:46, Rom 6:23, Matt 13:50, 2 Thes 1:9, etc.)--to enter back, once again, into God's presence (Rom 5:10, Col 1:20).
You move seamlessly from talking of death to talking of hell as if the two are the same. What do you believe hell is? Because the actual biblical case for a literal, everlasting hell (eternal conscious torment) is flimsy. There are one, maybe two, verses that may point in that direction which are used, with a good dose of traditional theology, to reinterpret the rest of scripture. If we let scripture speak then death is death and hell is not populated with people existing in torture forever (I refer to our thread discussing hell for more on this).
To the original question, what are we saved from? I'll second what Rod said, "Ourselves and our own humanistic existence and pursuits."
This is such a many-sided question. I'd frame my answer by going back to the beginning. God created humanity to live in relationship - relationship with God (walking in garden together), with each other (having no shame). Humans turned from this to a self-destructive way of life. Rather than pursuing God who gives the life we need, we pursue things (sin, idols, call it what you will) that leads to death (literal death, spiritual death). Jesus saves us from this self-destructive, sinful life.
So I don't need to find my identity in my career or friendships or status. These things are not bad, but making them the center makes them false gods. Ultimately they would consume and there would be nothing left of me, or any who pursue them. By grace through faith we are made new in Jesus Christ; we find that we already have that which we are pursuing because we find that God loves us in Christ. We don't need to earn this love, we relish in the fact that we have it freely given. And we are then freed, we are saved FOR the purpose of living as we were originally created to live, bringing blessing to the earth (Genesis 12), being a kingdom of priests (Exodus 19), simply expanding God's kingdom on earth.
Rod wrote: "Am I going to the Valley of Hinnom Lee? Especially if I disagree with just about everything you say? :DHave you been there lately? Is the fire still going nicely?"
No, you're not going, Rod. Not if God has anything to say about it ... God said it never crossed his mind to send anybody there.
btw, yes I HAVE been to Gehenna. :) The next time you go to Jerusalem, you can take a guided tour of "hell."
Hell is not very impressive is it? :DI saw pictures.
No, it's not.Picture it 2,000 years ago, though, with (according to Josephus) over one million bodies tossed over the wall of Jerusalem into "hell."
David it seems you never fully understand the situation. Lee is known to make numerous rude comments about the issues at hand - often without anything I would call proof.here's an example: Lee
" before he was hijacked by religion."
Just cause people write very long nauseous posts does not mean they are carefully defending the truth... but mostly just their biases and cherry picked research to defend their blind ignorance of trustworthy scholars.
Don't get upset David. Lee would say the exact same thing to me. (I actually appreciate that from him.)
At this point i'm just happy if people are chatting here at all. Any discussion is a good discussion.
(we are all wonderful at refraining from crude, sexual, violent, abusive rants.)
I would engage in a sexual rant in a heartbeat if I remembered what it was!
haha ... didn't realize I'd need to defend the "hijacked" comment because I was merely responding in kind to Robert's claim that I was hijacking Jesus. Rudeness begets rudeness? We're such good Christians, lol.
David is just in one of his political correctness modes - it'll pass as soon as the Christmas goodies are eaten up and he's back to surviving on the starving Pastor's diet of Spam.
To all involved - it is easy to say someone is "hijacking" something. Here's an idea - give some sort of proof or evidence.Lee - how was Jesus "hijacked" by religion?
Rod/Robert - how is Lee "hijacking" Jesus?
It is a nice zinger to fling out but actually says nothing.
I'm not trying to be politically correct, I am just hoping for actual engagement with argument rather than attacking someone's motives.
And I still have plenty of leftover wine, ham, and Christmas cookies before I go back to spam.
Jesus came preaching the beginning of the age of God's rule, where everyone would be able to enjoy God's creation. He taught how that could be accomplished, through compassion and understanding. He performed miracles as proof that the new age was beginning.But his kingdom-of-God message was hijacked and turned into some afterlife-oriented religion, redirecting our purpose from establishing the Kingdom of God on earth to staring at the clouds wishing God would help us float away to the sky.
David - through the tenor of various posts, readers discern a trend in the thinking of the individual and place him at a locus (perhaps unfairly) along the continuum of the "belief" about the characteristics of Jesus. All of us regular contributors have identified our viewpoints with ample clarity and frequency so little doubt exists where our sympathies lie. What you call a zinger that says nothing actually is a terse dagger aimed directly at one hopes is the individual's soft underbelly. Well thought out brevity with the extraneous fat removed which cuts to the quick beats a long-winded fishing expedition any day.
Ah. So whenever one is beaten down by the sheer volume of scripture contradicting their belief system, one should resort to the "less is more" stance?
Some may not have read my book about Revelation, and others may have forgotten, so I looked up a few more verses that describe Jesus prophesying against Jerusalem. You see, one consequence of God introducing a new messianic order was the violent overthrow of the older Mosaic order--abolishing the temple and its sacrifices.
That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. --Matthew 23:35
Zacharias, son of Barachias, was slain between the temple and the altar 40 years later.
And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. --Matthew 24:1-2
40 years later, the Romans toppled the temple.
Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. --Luke 13:5
40 years later, the residents of Jerusalem (save for the Christians, who escaped to Pella) were besieged and slaughtered.
Enough yet?
Brent wrote: "Really? So the disciples are preaching a message to people in India, Africa, and Europe, about how to avoid a one time Roman destruction on Jerusalem in 70 by cutting of one's hand?"Brent, this is a good point, thanks. You are correct, the apostles did NOT preach the wrath of Gehenna. Jesus is the only person who ever used that phrase, and only to his Palestinian audience. Peter and Paul, who preached outside Jerusalem, said nothing about Gehenna.
I guess that makes perfect sense.
oops, one exception. James uses the word, though not in the context of punishment. This has been a fascinating study.
We are saved from the second death and eternal damnation. Without Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, and an active faith in Him, we would all die and go to Hell.Jesus saved us from all this. But you must truly believe in your heart who He is, and your life must be a life of repentance of sin.
Lee - who exactly hijacked Jesus' message?Paul? Constantine?
I ask because I actually agree with this:
Jesus came preaching the beginning of the age of God's rule, where everyone would be able to enjoy God's creation. He taught how that could be accomplished, through compassion and understanding. He performed miracles as proof that the new age was beginning.
But I don't think this nullifies any sort of afterlife belief. I see it as a both/and.
Don't get me wrong, David, I am not denying an afterlife, or that it is discussed in the Bible. Jesus seemed to believe in an afterlife. There was talk about Jesus returning "on the clouds" to seal the deal (since his ordinary first appearance didn't quite match the expectations written by Daniel for the Son of Man). What I am saying is that the afterlife was not part of his gospel. The gospel pertained to the Kingdom of God on earth.You could say Paul helped hijack the message, when he rightly predicted the upcoming wrath but guessed wrong about Jesus returning then "on the clouds" to rescue them. Paul definitely had big dreams about life after death, and this fed into the idea that Christianity was about heaven or hell ... witness the rush to be martyred, ha, talk about a 180% reversal! However, Paul understood things better than many scholars give him credit for ... he grasped that the new age was begun, the long-awaited Spirit had been granted, and that its purpose was this-worldly (read his discussion of the fruits of the Spirit).
No, I'd say the real hijacking took place after the excitement of the first century died down, and readers tried to make misunderstood scriptural passages more relevant to their own time.
We are saved from our sins and damnation due from them.Jesus died on the cross once for all. He took on the sins of the world and by His death and resurrection he has washed us clean of our sins.
However, we need to believe this with all our heart and repent of our sins. Since we have a sinful nature, that means we are to try as hard as possible to live a Christ like life. One can't truly say they believe in something or love someone and not change inwardly and outwardly. True faith in what Jesus did results in good deeds. However, it is not those deeds that get us into Heaven. Those deeds are from having an active faith and not a dead one, for even the devil and demons believe in Jesus Christ and they shudder.
By being saved from our sinful life, past, present, and future, it means that we will live with Christ with glory in Everlasting Life when the New earth and New Heavens are created. Our souls with be united with our bodies which have been glorified.
If you truly love someone you show that love via acts of love. If you truly believe and love Jesus, you show that love through acts as well. You can't just keep on sinning and then hope that when you die you will be aware you are dying and have 5 minutes to confess your faith in Christ. You have to always be ready and start living your life for Him, as love for Him would entice you to do.
Thanks Judy. It's great to read that after Lee's liberal views.
Jesus will be coming back in the clouds on Judgment day, and the dead will be risen first to meet the Lord in the sky, and then the living will be raised. Also, this is no rapture, this is Judgment Day.Jesus will return just as he left, "in the clouds". He will not be coming to reign for a thousand years as the millennialists express. There is only one second coming and that one is on Judgement Day. Christ will come in all His glory and then it will be too late for anyone who does not believe and has an active faith in Christ.
I just read a book called End Times by Thomas P. Nass and he does a good job of explaining all the different theories about the end times. Such as dispensationalism, premillennialism, postmillennium, and so on. Christ is coming back only once and that is Judgement Day.
Judy - how does Nass explain away the millenium - it clearly exists in Scripture? Full disclosure - I'm a Premillenial Dispensationalist.
Ahh, Robert a dispensationalist! I should have figured as much! I don't hold my eschatology as firm as I hold my soteriology, but I fall in historic premillenialism in the likes of Charles Spurgeon, J.C. Ryle, and others. Basically what everyone believed after the amillenialism of the Reformers, after the postmillenialism of the Puritans, but before the dispensationalsm fervor set off by Darby, Ryrie et al.
I'm aware of your stance, Brent. As an old codger though, I need my Rapture so I'll have something to look forward to tomorrow!
Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
The Will to Power (other topics)The Brothers Karamazov (other topics)
Sometimes the Bible does make reference to being saved from "the wrath to come," but the context is obscure, and probably refers to the upcoming war of 70 AD. Certainly that is what John the Baptist was talking about when he called them a generation of vipers.
But if the "wrath to come" is this-worldly, what else does the Bible say we're saved from? I can't find anything that hints at hell!! Here are examples of things we're saved from:
This present evil age (Galatians 1:4)
Our present alienation from God, and need of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:19-20)
A pointless, hopeless life (Ephesians 2:12)
Bondage to sin (Matthew 1:21, among many)
Fear of death (Hebrews 2:15)
Is it time to set the record straight on what salvation really means? It is not about our postmortem state at all.